CHAPTER 4 SYNCOPE AND EPENTHESIS WITH PROCEDURAL CONSTRAINTS 4.0 Introduction 4.0.0 Introduction The last chapter I examined a case of asymmetrical interaction between two phonological domains, prosodic and segmental phonology. I have shown that the systematic failure of the featural details of the segmental makeup of a word to figure in stress assignment rules presents a general problem for output-oriented theories like OT. Because all significant generalizations are hypothesized in OT to lie in output structures, the theory is not designed to handle generalizations that are stated in terms of processes. Prosody-segmental interactions present just such a generalization: only some processes (stress-driven segmental changes), but not others (segmentally-driven stress) are observed typologically. I argued that such an asymmetrical generalization cannot be stated as a condition on output forms. An output condition requiring that metrical prominence and certain segmental features be localized within the same syllable or segment does not tell the whole story: what matters is not only where stress and segmental features are in the output, but how they got there. Derivationally, such generalizations about input-output mappings are quite straightforward to state. In OT, on the other hand, the input-output mapping emerges from the entire constraint ranking in the grammar. I have taken a direct approach by introducing procedural constraints that penalize candidates resulting from undesirable processes; violation patterns of such constraints must depend on the ranking of the remaining constraints in the grammar. 147 In this chapter I turn to a related type of generalization that cannot be stated in terms of output structures: ENVIRONMENT-based generalizations. In derivational theories, it is possible to state generalizations about processes being confined to apply only in some contexts but not others. As I will show, from the point of view of OT, such generalizations would again look like too-many-solutions problems, albeit from a different perspective. Environment-based generalizations appear as situations where a given process is used as a repair for some but not all constraints that could potentially force it. I will argue here that vowel epenthesis and metrically-driven vowel deletion (syncope) are subject to such generalizations, and that the proposed mechanism of procedural constraints is able to handle it. The procedural generalizations from the last chapter and the environment-based generalizations present two facets of the same problem, which has to do with the locus of the phonologically significant observation. In both cases, the most insightful statement of the typology should be made at a level other than the output. This property puts both kinds of problems within reach of the new procedural constraints introduced in the last chapter. This chapter is organized around the two main empirical domains, epenthesis and syncope. I begin by showing that many markedness constraints systematically fail to force epenthesis. The real typological generalization about epenthesis will turn out to be an environment-based one: it only applies to resolve marked consonant clusters. I will then provide a solution in terms of the framework of constraint interpretation developed in the last chapter. Next, I move on to syncope, and show again that OT does not provide a solution to the straightforward environment-based generalization that syncope does not apply to stressed vowels, a generalization that can be easily accomodated by my theory. I will survey in detail analyses of several languages with syncope, showing that whenever stressed vowel syncope has been proposed, alternative and better analyses are available. However, before turning to the empirical issues, I will devote the next section to clarifying some terms. 148 4.0.1 What is 'context' in OT? Because there are only two levels of representation in canonical OT, the input and the output, the reader might rightly ask if there is any meaning to the term 'environment' in the context of parallel output-oriented theories like OT. The derivational notion of the context (structural description) of a rule has a straightforward analog in OT only in the special case where the entire structural description is present in the underlying representation. Only in that case is there a level of representation where the conditioning environment of the process is present but the process itself has not applied. For example, in rule-based terms, word-final obstruent devoicing applies in the context __#; the structural description of such a rule is [–son, +voi]#. In OT, it makes sense to talk about the environment of this process only if the [–son, +voi]# sequence to which final devoicing eventually applies is present in the underlying form. It is true of Russian, for instance: every consonant that devoices due to the final devoicing constraint *[–son, +voi]# is word-final in the underlying form, and thus the structural description [– son,+voi]# is present at that level of representation. The situation need not be so simple, however; it is easy to see what a case would look like where the structural description would not be present at ANY level of representation. Suppose final devoicing is fed by another process, e.g. final vowel deletion (apocope). A toy derivation is given below. (1) /taba/ tab apocope tap final devoicing [tap] In a rule-based theory, there is always a level of representation where the structural description [–son, +voi]# is present; in this case, it is the output of the apocope rule [tab]. Indeed, the existence of such a level of representation is necessary for the 149 devoicing rule to apply at all. In OT, however, such intermediate representations are not available: the only two representations are the input /taba/ and the output [tap]. (2) /taba/ *[–son, +voi]# *V#MAX IDENT taba *! tab *! * ) tap * * Intuitively, the process that takes /b/ to [p] in (2) is final devoicing, but it is problematic to say so, because there is no level of representation where the voiced consonant [b] is final. The only form that qualifies is the losing candidate [tab], one among infinitely many other losing candidates. Thus, we must be more clear about what the words 'context of a process' mean in situations like (2), by specifying what is special about the candidate [tab], where the structural description is present, as opposed to all of the other losers. Here we will work along the same lines as in the previous chapter, where I defined the notion of a constraint driving a process in terms of the optimal candidate in a grammar with the constraint in question removed. The intuition there was that a constraint causes a process to apply to a given phonological object if that object behaves differently depending on whether the constraint is present in the grammar or not. Here, the intuition is the same: we will look for the context of a process driven by a given constraint in the optimal candidate of the alternative grammar with that constraint removed. In our toy example, the relevant constraint is the one responsible for final devoicing, *[–son, +voi]#. The grammar without it picks [tab] as the winner, as shown below. (3) /taba/ *[–son, +voi]# *V# MAX IDENT taba *! ) tab * * tap * *! 150 In other words, we say that the environment of devoicing in this example is 'word-final' because the stop that devoices would have been word-final had devoicing not applied. A more strict definition is given below. (4) ENVIRONMENT OF PROCESS (Definition) Given a grammar G, a constraint C, and an input /i/, output [o], and some process that the constraint C forces in [o], the ENVIRONMENT of that process is minimal locus of violation of C in the optimal candidate [o'] in the grammar G' that is identical to G except that C has been removed. With this machinery in place, it is now easy to state, in plain English, generalizations about environments of processes in OT terms. For example, the (false) claim that devoicing only applies word-finally would take the following shape: "Devoicing only applies to consonants that would have been word-final had devoicing not applied". The (true) claim that syncope does not apply to stressed vowels (see below in this chapter) would take the form: "Syncope applies only to vowels which would have been unstressed had syncope not applied". The form of these statements should already suggest to the reader that such generalizations can be handled by the constraint evaluation method introduced in the last chapter, which relies on a similar notion of the winner in an alternative grammar with some constraint removed. In this chapter I make the connection more precise. 4.0.2 Epenthesis and syncope: introduction Let me now move on to the empirical domain of this chapter, vowel epenthesis and syncope. In a nutshell, the typological behavior of these two processes can be most economically and insightfully stated not in terms of the character of the output they produce but the environment in which they apply. Despite the superficial complementarity of these two processes, examining their environments shows that they 151 respond to altogether different pressures. Epenthesis universally serves to break up marked consonant clusters, but, in general, does not cater to metrical constraints. Vowel syncope, on the other hand, applies to weak vowels – that is, vowels in light syllables that are unstressed, unfooted, posttonic, or word-final. Crucially, metrically-driven vowel deletion can never target stressed syllables. These are generalizations about ENVIRONMENTS in which the processes of syncope and epenthesis apply. There is no output condition that can capture such a generalization. Positing constraints that prohibit weak vowels on the surface – e.g., constraints against unstressed short vowels in open syllables, or constraints against vowels unparsed by feet – would ensure that no such vowels appear on the surface, but would do nothing to control context of syncope.